Last I read, which wasn't too long ago, we'll have to wait about another 10 years or so for a battery approaching anything like ICEs. Note that that battery technology hasn't been developed yet. There are a couple of known ideas, but nothing has gone beyond proof-of-concept development. Evolution of current battery technology doesn't look like it'll be enough to get us there.

Sure, EVs can have a place, but they won't be a magic bullet for a long time to come if ever. $18.5K for a commuter? I'm not optimistic. And if they're not practical or truly economical (and cost of entry is the biggest issue for most people), not many people will own them. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of green technology?

I can't help but think that the EV fad is being indulged at the expense of more promising alternative energy ideas.

E-vehicles have yet to begin to even approach maturation. However, there's no denying the intense development that is increasing range and reducing recharge times. Lower costs are sure to follow.

__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the Stupid are c0cksure and the Intelligent are full of doubt." -Bertrand Russell

True about Telsa's recharging station plan but, they will only work for Telsas. No other electric/hybrid plugin will be able to use them..........only Telsas. I think that is a bit tacky...

I'm not sure where you heard/read that, but this is off their wesite:

"We install systems that are compatible with most electric vehicles including the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, BMW Active-e and Tesla. We understand and will ensure your system is compatible with electric codes (UL, NEC, etc.) and automotive standards (SAE, etc.)."

Tesla cars use the standard charging plugs and rates, so it doesn't really make sense the charging stations would be incompatible.

It is true that Solar City stations will charge Tesla cars for free for their lifetime, and other brands will pay.

I'm not saying they can never work, but there's no such thing as a free lunch, and 90% of the people who are ga-ga for electric vehicles are fundamentally incapable of accepting the notion of sub-optimal trade-offs.

Generating and distributing electricity and using it in E-vehicles is more efficient than gas. That's why they get "mileage" ratings from 70 to over 100 "mpg."

There's an enormous surplus of generating capacity at night, when most vehicles will be charged.

Since we've starting having threads on this site regarding e-bikes, their ranges have more than tripled, their power outputs have quadrupled, the battery lives are now exceeding the life of the rest of the bikes.

What the hell is it going to take to convince you this is a viable technology? I'm reminded of the 100 y/o former slave NBC interviewed at on of the Apollo launches. He was standing there on the bank of the Indian River in Titusville, watching and hearing the Saturn 5 fly into space, and he still maintained the whole thing was a big fake.

Generating and distributing electricity and using it in E-vehicles is more efficient than gas. That's why they get "mileage" ratings from 70 to over 100 "mpg."

There's an enormous surplus of generating capacity at night, when most vehicles will be charged.

Since we've starting having threads on this site regarding e-bikes, their ranges have more than tripled, their power outputs have quadrupled, the battery lives are now exceeding the life of the rest of the bikes.

What the hell is it going to take to convince you this is a viable technology? I'm reminded of the 100 y/o former slave NBC interviewed at on of the Apollo launches. He was standing there on the bank of the Indian River in Titusville, watching and hearing the Saturn 5 fly into space, and he still maintained the whole thing was a big fake.

"What the hell is it going to take to convince you this is a viable technology?"

Tripled range? Please show me how that's true. I'm not being a wise@ss, I'd really like to know.

I do suspect that it'll be difficult to show that, though. Considering the EV manufacturers have been making wildly optimistic claims from the beginning and, up until recently, there was no standard for determining range, I'm not sure that anyone can make that claim with any certainty.

Battery technology has made significant strides and what have we got? This bike, for example, which needs to be ridden gently to get 65 miles. What we need is a leap--a different kind of EV battery technology, like the MIT semi-flow/slurry battery technology or something equally innovative. That is not going to happen real soon. It's probably going to take several more years.

Until then, we'll get smaller improvements, which is fine, but does not make for a terribly viable consumer product. I don't think any of these companies are going to succeed selling high-priced novelties. EVs will have their uses and I would even consider owning one, but it would be a secondary vehicle. Unfortunately, the cost of entry is just way too high.

That's why I think that it's not a vialble technology just yet. EVs really serve no signifcant consumer need and cannot replace ICEs in the vast majority of use cases.

Tripled range? Please show me how that's true. I'm not being a wise@ss, I'd really like to know.

I do suspect that it'll be difficult to show that, though. Considering the EV manufacturers have been making wildly optimistic claims from the beginning and, up until recently, there was no standard for determining range, I'm not sure that anyone can make that claim with any certainty.

Battery technology has made significant strides and what have we got? This bike, for example, which needs to be ridden gently to get 65 miles. What we need is a leap--a different kind of EV battery technology, like the MIT semi-flow/slurry battery technology or something equally innovative. That is not going to happen real soon. It's probably going to take several more years.

Until then, we'll get smaller improvements, which is fine, but does not make for a terribly viable consumer product. I don't think any of these companies are going to succeed selling high-priced novelties. EVs will have their uses and I would even consider owning one, but it would be a secondary vehicle. Unfortunately, the cost of entry is just way too high.

That's why I think that it's not a vialble technology just yet. EVs really serve no signifcant consumer need and cannot replace ICEs in the vast majority of use cases.

Being skeptical isn't being a wiseass; it's being smart.

This is from Troy Siahann's article on Zero on March 1 this year:"Starting with the powertrain, the DS features the new Z-Force power pack. Gone is the 4.2 kW/h battery, replaced with the ZF6 (6 kW/h) or ZF9 (9 kW/h) power pack. While bigger is generally better, in plain English this means the DS has a range of up to 112 miles with the ZF9 power pack, according to Zero and an EPA urban driving cycle test. The standard ZF6 achieves a claimed 76 miles, which is more than double the range of last year’s machine.It gets better. The new battery packs are designed to last 3000 full charge-discharge cycles before reaching 80% capacity. In the real world, that means the original battery can last over 300,000 miles. It’s so stout, Zero says it’ll last the life of the motorcycle."

That's double the capacity in one year. If we back it up a couple of years when MO started covering E-bikes, the ranges were more in the 30-40 mile area. I honestly don't think it's a stretch to say they've tripled their range.

I was thinking about the e-vehicle discussion over the weekend, and a point came to mind:

Elon Musk made himself a billionaire by recognizing a need for a service that seems pretty obvious now, but that nobody else thought of or got out there before Pay Pal. After making his billions, Musk decided to go into space and electric vehicles.

On the space side, the journals and press pretty much dismissed Space-X as a distraction or hobby for Musk. I read several articles in Aviation Week and Space Technology over the years that basically said "this dot-com startup will never be able to compete with the likes of McDonnell Douglas, Pratt and Whitney, Lockheed, etc." Musk built his team, they built the Falcon 1 to prove their Merlin engine and vehicle, then they built the Falcon 9, which is what put their Dragon capsule in orbit to the ISS, and in 2014 they'll launch the Falcon Heavy from Vandenberg, which will be the most powerful rocket since the Saturn V. Meanwhile, Dragon capsules are taking cargo to and from the ISS on a regular schedule. They kicked the traditional space-launch industry's ass.

The same Mr. Musk is building e-vehicles. The Tesla Roadster wasn't a breakthrough, but the new "S" is an order of magnitude better than anything that anyone else is building now. There's a much less expensive "X" planned for release in 2014. Musk isn't waiting for the government or anyone else to build out the charging infrastructure, he's going to private businesses and cutting deals to put solar panels on their roofs and storage batteries in their buildings, and creating a network of recharge stations in the process.

So my point is, look at WHO is leading the way as much as what is being done. A true entrepreneur, a capitialist; just like the early aviation leaders like Hughes and Tripp.